@Thenomain Does the old TinyMux let you work with some more advanced level action? For example a basic / entry level Python exersise is to work out question and response logic.

Player types: xp/sp gno=4 <enter>
Print to screen: How much regular XP will you be spending?
Player types: 0 <enter>
Print to screen: How much Arcane XP will you be spending?
Player types: 16 <enter>
Print to screen: <more stuffs>

Or something like that? You then could type out the whole thing with a predefined syntax like: xp/spend <trait>=<level>/<type1=cost> <type2=cost> <typeN=cost> (or whatever) or you could run through prompts...

Then when it's all over and the rest of you are ready for Dead Animal Pickup, I'm gonna go balls deep into Dahl. But only because she asked me to. Sweet-like. - Riddick (2013)

@Thenomain Does the old TinyMux let you work with some more advanced level action? For example a basic / entry level Python exersise is to work out question and response logic.

Player types: xp/sp gno=4 <enter>
Print to screen: How much regular XP will you be spending?
Player types: 0 <enter>
Print to screen: How much Arcane XP will you be spending?
Player types: 16 <enter>
Print to screen: <more stuffs>

Or something like that? You then could type out the whole thing with a predefined syntax like: xp/spend <trait>=<level>/<type1=cost> <type2=cost> <typeN=cost> (or whatever) or you could run through prompts...

You could reasonably do this with @Program, though realistically it would just store the answers and send them back to a command for later implementation. So I mean, you could do it that way, but it'd be a longer version of a single command. Might be worth looking into though.

Probably the best. I don't like adding additional /, as it already will be used within the command (ie, xp/spend target/stuff). I also don't like locking people into a form, not if /unspend is easy enough to use.

Just to be different: I could see a world in which some people prefer to use a syntax that explicitly drops them into a prompt that captures all of their input. For example, this would be faster than typing it all out:

Just to be different: I could see a world in which some people prefer to use a syntax that explicitly drops them into a prompt that captures all of their input. For example, this would be faster than typing it all out:

One of the things that @program does is lock the player into no other input. If you're in the middle of this, you cannot type, say, 'p staff=Hey, question!'

I would really like to avoid that part. Maybe I have no imagination when it comes to input, but inadvertently locking someone out of responding to any other input but not stopping the other input doesn't feel like a good idea.

Like every time I hit the backtick (`) in Mass Effect: Andromeda, engaging console mode, and start yelling at the screen, "Why is nothing responding!" Or when I get locked into a conversation in Mass Effect: Andromeda and start yelling at the screen, "Why are you letting these people attack me!"

I know where you and @ThatOneDude were going for, and as someone who learned how to program for a terminal (CICS mmmmm, crunchy), I get it. I just can't see it working. If I'm missing some core component to this that would make it work without the lockout, I could give it a try. Maybe a less than non-useful 'Huh?' message. You know, like, "Huh? (You're trying to type things; if you want to quit this type 'nuh-uh' and you can get back to the main game.)" This would involve absorbing everything. I mean $*:@pemit %#=Nope! style everything. I've done this. Er, once.

Maybe I have no imagination when it comes to input, but inadvertently locking someone out of responding to any other input but not stopping the other input doesn't feel like a good idea.

Yes, and I'm talking about doing it very advertently by tying it to a special syntax that isn't similar to the normal syntax. Backtick as the shortcut for the dev console is a terrible idea because video games use the 1 key all the time and people are usually hitting their keyboards pretty quickly and without looking when they're trying to shoot and avoid being shot. There's no reason why someone who wanted to use xp/spend Gnosis=4, 8 Arcane would get within two characters of typing ... and the probability of it happening by chance is tiny.

Then when you hit the magic number needed for an increase, boom, done. You have new level of arcane.

+axp would stand for alternate xp, so could be used for any splat that had something similar.

I am hella in favor of this, to be honest. Especially if it also locked to a Wait Time, so if you paid for it in full before you could actually buy it, it would just say 'you have bought Gnosis 4. It will be available in a week' or whatever.

The problem I see with using @program is that you cannot use any of the standard commands, not that you'll enter it by accident. You cannot page someone or use channels while in a @program, which are things that people might want to use to get help with the program. (Note:I haven't checked this decade, so maybe it's changed.)

The "inadvertent" part is that people probably don't know what they're locked out of when they start it.

--

I am thinking about the other "build-based" system, just letting it float in my brain a bit.

The "inadvertent" part is that people probably don't know what they're locked out of when they start it.

If the helpfile says that it locks you out of everything, and the syntax is such that nobody's going to enter the lockout through a typo, the remainder is analogous to someone who sees "hot surface" and decides to touch it to verify if the sign is accurate.

I'm not wedded to the idea, I just wanted to be contradictory because I felt like previous mentions of a lockout in this thread were unnecessarily correlated with the idea that some people would enter it without knowing what was up and then feel distressed when no other commands worked. I think it's possible to include simple and intuitive syntax where the chance of someone's cat stumbling into it is rather improbable.

The "inadvertent" part is that people probably don't know what they're locked out of when they start it.

If the helpfile says that it locks you out of everything, and the syntax is such that nobody's going to enter the lockout through a typo, the remainder is analogous to someone who sees "hot surface" and decides to touch it to verify if the sign is accurate.

You and I are few of the insane people who have read the enirety of the MUX help files.

You and I are few of the insane people who have read the enirety of the MUX help files.

I read help.txt and wizhelp.txt. Does that count? :D

To be honest, though, I've been looking at @program for a variety of things. I think it could be very useful. It would take a while for people to adjust to, but for things like, say, Mage spellcasting, where a variety of factors have to be taken into account? It could be invaluable.